Personnel

ICSC Technical working group on reform of the general service classification standard

Reform for the “G”s?

Maria Dweggah (FICSA), Susan Thompson (CCISUA)

The International Civil Service Commission, at its 2003 summer session, decided, following the promulgation of the new job evaluation standard for the Professional and higher categories, that it would be desirable to examine the progression of support category functions from a global perspective, including the possibility of the application of a single standard for the classification of all General Service jobs in eight headquarters duty stations – Geneva, New York, Madrid, Vienna, Rome, London, Montreal and Paris.
To respond to the request of the Commission, its Secretariat began research on the reform of the job evaluation system for GS staff and related categories. A comparative study was thus undertaken by a consultant and on the basis of that report a first meeting was held in Geneva on 11 and 12 January 2005 with the participation of organization and staff representatives.
Representatives of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (CCISUA) and the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) joined together in this technical working group to better defend the conditions of service of the “G” staff. A primary concern being that the classification standard could not be changed independently without first reviewing the evolution of GS jobs and questioning exactly what is meant by “reform”. Following is the text of the joint statement, delivered at the opening of the meeting.

“There are a number of findings in the consultant’s report with which the Federations can agree.

• we agree that uniformly the current standards are working effectively
• u we acknowledge that the wording of some of the factors of the current standards could be updated,
• we note that information technology, shrinking work forces (often due to budgetary constraints) and multi-tasking have changed the profile of some occupational groups ex. secretaries, typists) and given rise to new ones (ex info. tech. clerks.);
• we also acknowledge that the intellectual contribution of the GS, in particular at the higher grades, could be better captured.
  In this connection, the difference between GS and P could be better defined.

In other words, there are areas where the current standards could be improved.
There are also a number of statements with which the Federations disagrees. We draw attention to one in particular. The report draws too strong a parallel between the benchmarks used for internal classification purposes and those used for external job matching purposes in a salary survey. The benchmarks are different and serve different purposes – so we would strongly object to using any global benchmarks for classification purposes in local salary surveys.
The consultant’s report concludes that it would be feasible, viable and advisable to unite the HQ duty station classification standards and seriously consider providing for the future unification of the non-HQ standards. However we are not convinced that the findings of the report support such a conclusion.

• First, the consultant admits that uniformly the current standards work effectively, although they may be time consuming for some.
• Second, the differences noted among the benchmarks and factors of the HQ standards are many, and while differences can be ruled out, we are not convinced this would be an easy process or an improvement.
• Third, the consultant points (in pages 24-27) to areas where further analysis is required, in particular to understand the rationale for local peculiarities.

It appears that the wish of the Commission to unify the classification standards will drive any conclusion irrespective of the difficulties and disruption of the present consistency at the local levels. If this is the case, then it is imperative that any new standard is, as the consultant’s report states, transparent, equitable, and clear in terminology. Its compactness should not ignore local meaningful peculiarities. The fact that there may only be few incumbents of posts in a particular occupational group is not a reason for excluding them from a classification standard.
The report argues for a move away from a task oriented standard towards a competency based approach. We see this a move away from a rank in post to a rank in person approach with an increase in subjectivity, and consequent loss in transparency and equity in implementation particularly if the implementation of new system is delegated to line mangers.
The Commission is seeking a holistic system linking competencies to performance. While classification standards are one cornerstone of an integrated management system, we should not try to have the classification standards do more than they are capable of doing.
The Federations feel that is premature for decisions on any new system of post classification to be taken at this meeting and are convinced that such could only be achieved through a process of a very close consultation will the ICSC Secretariat, human resources and staff representatives.”
It is the intention of the Federations to meet again before the next meeting of the technical working group to better defend the conditions of service and rights of General staff and related categories.
 
The staff will be kept informed of progress.